leroy wrote:Well in this case you are not dealing with Leroy minded people, you are dealing with Leroy himself, so I guess a simple Yes or NO answer is necessary.

even though I have poor RC, I have other abilities, for example I am very talented prophet and I predict the future I can predict that I wont get that Yes or No answer from you

You're the most Leroy-minded person of all, Leroy.

And no, you're not a talented prophet because it takes absolutely no talent to "predict" that my response would be:"I've already answered your question Leroy, work on your reading comprehension and look it up.

And we'll also note, you've again avoided responding to the points that were raised".

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

leroy wrote:Well in this case you are not dealing with Leroy minded people, you are dealing with Leroy himself, so I guess a simple Yes or NO answer is necessary.

even though I have poor RC, I have other abilities, for example I am very talented prophet and I predict the future I can predict that I wont get that Yes or No answer from you

You're the most Leroy-minded person of all, Leroy.

And no, you're not a talented prophet because it takes absolutely no talent to "predict" that my response would be:"I've already answered your question Leroy, work on your reading comprehension and look it up.

And we'll also note, you've again avoided responding to the points that were raised".

But I still did not get a yes or no answer.................my talent in predicting the future is undeniable.

I am pretty sure that I addressed all the relevant points in my reply to Grumpy Santa, but feel free to explain what specific point you think requires an explanation

[quote="leroy"But I still did not get a yes or no answer.................my talent in predicting the future is undeniable.

I am pretty sure that I addressed all the relevant points in my reply to Grumpy Santa, but feel free to explain what specific point you think requires an explanation[/quote]Only in the minds of Leroy-minded people would predicting that someone who refused to repeat himself would refuse to repeat himself count as "talent".

Look, I'll predict that you will still not have figured out my answer despite it being clear and I also predict that you will not address the issues that were raised.

Do I also have "undeniable predicting talent" or will you prove me wrong Leroy?

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

You forgot #3 - They claim their hero was a human sacrifice that actually worked, then he got better and went to heaven and watches everyone today because magic.

well you can still make self sacrifice and have an honorable death at the same time,

what you are trying to do is provide a possible explanation that would make crucifixion not embarrassing, but there is historical evidence that proves that it was an embarrassing detail, we know that the crucifixion was an obstacle for those who where preaching the gospel,

Paul writes in Corinthians 1

Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

If crusifixtion was a stumbling block for jews and gentiles, why not simply inventing some other story with a honorable death that would fit the expectations of Jews and Gentiles?......If the goal is to convince as many Jews and gentiles as possible that your Hero is the Messiah, why not inventing a story that would fit their expectations?

so our opinions are irrelevant, we have primary sources that confirm that the crusifixtion was a stumbling block and that was an obstacle for those who where preaching the gospel, and you have not a single source that suggest otherwise.

Embarrassing? A "stumbling block"? What exactly do you think crucifixion was? It was extended torture to the victim's death days later, not an inconvenience that makes you look bad. The cross was used as a torture device, the most visible and probably the most heinous of the time. The way you're trying to dismiss the suffering all those people had is worrisome.

Embarrassing? A "stumbling block"? What exactly do you think crucifixion was? It was extended torture to the victim's death days later, not an inconvenience that makes you look bad. The cross was used as a torture device, the most visible and probably the most heinous of the time. The way you're trying to dismiss the suffering all those people had is worrisome.

I would, however, be a fitting end for someone claiming martyrdom.

I have no idea why is that comment relevant to anything that I said, but you did make an important point,

The cross was used as a torture device, the most visible and probably the most heinous of the time

If you are inventing a story and inventing a death, why inventing a death by crucifixion which a the most visible ? and Public? if the story is fake people from Jerusalem could have simply say that no supposed messiah was crucified during Eastern, and the myth would have been exposed.

If you are inventing a death you are not likely to invent a public death because it would be very easy to expose the myth.

"events with a zero probability happen all the time"

Last edited by leroy on Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

leroy wrote:Do you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was an almost certain historical fact?

this is a yes or no question. You don't have to explain anything, all you have to do is answer YES or NO

I've already answered this question Leroy.

Why don't you look it up? And when you do you'll also probably see the issues that were raised and then ignored by you. Can you try to answer them? (Be warned, they demand more than a simple "yes" or "no" so do not be afraid to say that they are beyond your ability to reason).

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

leroy wrote:Do you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was an almost certain historical fact?

this is a yes or no question. You don't have to explain anything, all you have to do is answer YES or NO

I've already answered this question Leroy.

Why don't you look it up? And when you do you'll also probably see the issues that were raised and then ignored by you. Can you try to answer them? (Be warned, they demand more than a simple "yes" or "no" so do not be afraid to say that they are beyond your ability to reason).

ok so please tell me what points I supposedly ignore, I will answer them, and then you will provide a YES or NO............agree?

leroy wrote:ok so please tell me what points I supposedly ignore, I will answer them, and then you will provide a YES or NO............agree?

So you're asking me to repeat points I've already made for you to obtain an answer I've alredy made?

That's a lot of effort to obtain an answer you already have but If you do finally answer, I'll be surprised so you have a deal. Answer these issues and I'll answer your question with a "Yes" of a "No" rather than something that is clear for other people but not for you. I've rephrased some of these but could not reduce them to "yes" or "no".

Did calling someone a troll ever convince that person that the completely wrong point you were making was right?

You do realize that myths are not all completely fictional? That some myths are based on events that actually took place but that contain fictitious or exaggerated events?

If an author that would want his "hero" to atone for all the sins of mankind, to redeem it and save it, that hero needs to suffer as mankind as suffered because of its "sinful" nature, wouldn't that author choose the most painful and humiliating way of dying so that the hero's sacrifice be the most nobler and redeeming of mankind? So to accomplish the above, what would an author pick as a way of dying, if he lived 2,000 years ago? Write a better story

Do you understand that perhaps the death by crucifixion for Jesus may not go against the gospel author's objective but is in fact compatible with the message of christianity?

Do you understand the difference between dishonorable (note the spelling) and humiliating/embarassing? Or do they mean the same thing under Leroy's definition of "dishonorable" and Leroy's definition of "humiliating"? Do you understand that they do not mean the same thing to me?

What do you think is the cause for your poor reading comprehension?

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

MarsCydonia wrote:Did calling someone a troll ever convince that person that the completely wrong point you were making was right?

no

You do realize that myths are not all completely fictional? That some myths are based on events that actually took place but that contain fictitious or exaggerated events?

yes, but the point that Richard carrear and other Jesus Mythisists is that Jesus was a fully mythical person, and that the gospels are myths (not even intended to be historical by the authors)

My intend was to answer to that particular view. If you what to argue that Jesus was a real historical person but was decorated with myths, feel free to do so, but that would be irrelevant to my point and irrelevant for the debate referenced in the beginning of this post.

If an author that would want his "hero" to atone for all the sins of mankind, to redeem it and save it, that hero needs to suffer as mankind as suffered because of its "sinful" nature, wouldn't that author choose the most painful and humiliating way of dying so that the hero's sacrifice be the most nobler and redeeming of mankind?

Most painful, Yes Maybe

Most humiliating, Not likely

the thing is that we know from historical (primary) sources that the crucifixion of Jesus was an inconvenient detail and made preaching the gospel harder

So to accomplish the above, what would an author pick as a way of dying, if he lived 2,000 years ago? Write a better story

Someone that would have succeed in saving his people from the roman empire, and who died in a heroic battle, (or not even dying in the first place)

Do you understand that perhaps the death by crucifixion for Jesus may not go against the gospel author's objective but is in fact compatible with the message of christianity?

maybe, but not likely,

Do you understand the difference between dishonorable (note the spelling) and humiliating/embarassing?

I am using the words as synonyms,

Or do they mean the same thing under Leroy's definition of "dishonorable" and Leroy's definition of "humiliating"? Do you understand that they do not mean the same thing to me?

well feel free to use any other words that you what, you know what I mean anyway.

What do you think is the cause for your poor reading comprehension?

Your ambiguous and contradictory answers...

////

ok so you may or may not agree with my answers, but you can no longer accuse for ignoring them........

So do you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was a nearly certain historical fact?

MarsCydonia wrote:You do realize that myths are not all completely fictional? That some myths are based on events that actually took place but that contain fictitious or exaggerated events?

yes, but the point that Richard carrear and other Jesus Mythisists is that Jesus was a fully mythical person, and that the gospels are myths (not even intended to be historical by the authors)

My intend was to answer to that particular view. If you what to argue that Jesus was a real historical person but was decorated with myths, feel free to do so, but that would be irrelevant to my point and irrelevant for the debate referenced in the beginning of this post.

But it would not be irrelevant to your point that "no author would invent the crucifixion" which my intent was to answer this point as being false.

leroy wrote:

MarsCydonia wrote:If an author that would want his "hero" to atone for all the sins of mankind, to redeem it and save it, that hero needs to suffer as mankind as suffered because of its "sinful" nature, wouldn't that author choose the most painful and humiliating way of dying so that the hero's sacrifice be the most nobler and redeeming of mankind?

Most painful, Yes Maybe

Most humiliating, Not likely

the thing is that we know from historical (primary) sources that the crucifixion of Jesus was an inconvenient detail and made preaching the gospel harder

You're confusing "harder" with "hard". According to Leroy-logic, what would make it easier? Actually, I think we have a good exemple of something that would have made it harder coming up...

leroy wrote:

MarsCydonia wrote:So to accomplish the above, what would an author pick as a way of dying, if he lived 2,000 years ago? Write a better story

Someone that would have succeed in saving his people from the roman empire, and who died in a heroic battle, (or not even dying in the first place)

Now that would have made it harder... How would Jesus vainquishing the roman empire and not even die make it better story if the idea is to preach the gospel that Jesus died for our sins?

Can we imagine the preachers? "Adam and Eve ate of the fruit and sin entered the world. To redeem and save us from our sinful nature God sent his only son to slaugther the romans and die in his sleep..."

I asked for better and you gave much much worse.

leroy wrote:

MarsCydonia wrote:Do you understand that perhaps the death by crucifixion for Jesus may not go against the gospel author's objective but is in fact compatible with the message of christianity?

maybe, but not likely,

And you'd be completely wrong:Christian doctrine holds that divine Jesus chose to suffer crucifixion at Calvary as a sign of his full obedience to the will of his divine Father, as an "agent and servant of God".*,** In Christian theology the Lamb of God is viewed as foundational and integral to the message of Christianity.****The Christology of Anselm of Canterbury by Dániel Deme**The Christology of the New Testament by Oscar Cullmann***The Destroyer and the Lamb: The Relationship Between Angelomorphic and Lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation by Matthias Reinhard Hoffmann

Have you noticed? "Jesus chose to suffer crucifixion" and that is viewed "as foundational and integral to the message of Christianity"?

I mean, the majority of christians understand the idea of redemption achieved through Jesus' sacrfice. If you want to argue so far out of the integral and foundational message of christianity that's on you Leroy but that is something not only scholars but christians in general would disagree with.

That is because something that is viewed as integral and foundational to the message cannot be reasonably argued to be against the message. There are things integral to christianiy and Jesus slaugthering romans is not it.

leroy wrote:

MarsCydonia wrote:Do you understand the difference between dishonorable (note the spelling) and humiliating/embarassing?

I am using the words as synonyms ... feel free to use any other words that you what, you know what I mean anyway.

You really should stop using words with different meaning as synonyms of if you do, highlight them with Leroy's definition of "_____"

Because thinking that other people use them as synonym when they're not, that's a huge reading comprehension problem.

leroy wrote:

MarsCydonia wrote:What do you think is the cause for your poor reading comprehension?

Your ambiguous and contradictory answers...

Yet you're the only one with the issue. Try again Leroy, come up with a plausible answer and some not wishful fantasy.(I guess that's on me because you did not offer nor did I ask that you answer honestly?)

leroy wrote:ok so you may or may not agree with my answers, but you can no longer accuse for ignoring them........

So do you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus was a nearly certain historical fact?

They were horrible answers but they were answers.

So I'll repeat myself: No.Now I could elaborate but since any further explanation would not be as simple as "no", why bother when you have not shown the capacity to understand? Instead, I'll let you delude yourself into thinking this answer means something it does not.

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians

The cross was used as a torture device, the most visible and probably the most heinous of the time

If you are inventing a story and inventing a death, why inventing a death by crucifixion which a the most visible ? and Public? if the story is fake people from Jerusalem could have simply say that no supposed messiah was crucified during Eastern, and the myth would have been exposed.

If you are inventing a death you are not likely to invent a public death because it would be very easy to expose the myth.

Well, a couple reasons. It's probably (at the time) one of the most severe punishments of the time, befitting of a mythological martyr. If they, for example, simply had him beheaded there's be precious chapters of drama completely cut out. Suddenly the whole "suffering for our sins" thing is effectively gone. Plus, keep in mind in those days news travelled by word of mouth at a walking pace. Someone goes to a town miles away, tells of their martyr suffering heinously yada yada and there's no way to fact-check it. Some people will believe it and spread the tale, probably with embellishments. Eventually a modified version gets written down, there's no way to tell what the original story was (or even if there was one) and a religion is born.

Regardless of whether or not cuxifiction is an embarrassing way to die..

If you have ever read the Old Testament, then you would know that the historical record it gives is basically all about how evil the Jews or His chosen people were. No matter what God told them to do or what miracle He did for them, they always rebelled against God, no matter what. God, in the Bible even points out that the pagans are more faithful to their gods than His own people are to Him.

I am not a Jew-hater. I have only meet 2 people in my entire life that I knew were Jewish, in America, and I did not know them well. The entire Old Testament is a complete embarrassment for the Jews, yet it must have taken a great effort for them to preserve it for so long.

What are you thoughts on this?

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

Christ's crucifiction was certainly an embarrassment, at least to the Jews. Pilate put a sign on him saying " King of the Jews" When the Jewish leaders demanded that the sign was changed to "He claimed to be King of the Jews" Pilate told them to go fuck themselves.

What are your thoughts on this?

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

Christ's crucifiction was certainly an embarrassment, at least to the Jews. Pilate put a sign on him saying " King of the Jews" When the Jewish leaders demanded that the sign was changed to "He claimed to be King of the Jews" Pilate told them to go fuck themselves.

What are your thoughts on this?

Pilate was simply mocking Jewish leaders ., he ordered something that he knew was going to bother them.